[atofsu32111]

[brunofortes]

what are you trying to say ?

[atofsu32111]

Dude under was lock then 2-1 out of no where wtf is up with unders? should i just bet every gaqme ovver?

[swordsandtequila]

You've made numerous posts about losing unders, many of us have responded to the perils and aggravation with betting unders, yet you keep betting and losing unders. Maybe lay off the unders?

And there's no such thing as a lock

[ColdBeerHere]

the term lock should be banned from this forum

[Nova99]

unders are not bad, just have to pick the right spot if you bet unders in the asia wc qualifiers you would be killing it...

[soul786]

The way I see it: Teams playing to win, are trying to score. The object of the game is to score.

If players are with the same intention, don't bet against them, afterall they have the ability to determine the game.

Unless you have big news on injury or conditions (and even then sometimes it doesn't mean much) I don't suggest betting unders. There are tips for overs too but that's for another discussion.

[Nova99]

soul thats an interesting theory although i think modern football has started to develop more of the idea that you cant lose if your opponent do not score! last 20 years of the wc and the euros its usually an under in the finals, in the end its really just a gamble either way, i'm sure most over bettors remember many occasions where a sure over ended in a 0-0 or 1-0 game.

only real difference IMO is an over bet will keep you interested longer since it can cash from the 5th minute to the 95th minute, for an under your bet can die in the 5th minute and is never safe until the final whistle. like swords said in other threads - betting an under is pretty much inviting a heart attack if you watch the game live!

[soul786]

soul thats an interesting theory although i think modern football has started to develop more of the idea that you cant lose if your opponent do not score! last 20 years of the wc and the euros its usually an under in the finals, in the end its really just a gamble either way, i'm sure most over bettors remember many occasions where a sure over ended in a 0-0 or 1-0 game.

only real difference IMO is an over bet will keep you interested longer since it can cash from the 5th minute to the 95th minute, for an under your bet can die in the 5th minute and is never safe until the final whistle. like swords said in other threads - betting an under is pretty much inviting a heart attack if you watch the game live!

Agree completely with what you've said, and that's why statistics aren't what you should always bet on. Take for example Germany/Netherlands match earlier in the Friendlies: Two powerhouse teams score a lot, 0 - 0 draw in the end. I fell into the trap for that game and took the over. What I should begin doing more of, is factoring situational betting ideals in my decisions. For this game, although both teams score a lot, they also concede few goals, i.e their defense is good. High calibre team defend well, and in a match with no real consequence, win/lose/draw, betting on it wasn't the smartest decision, but gun to my head I should have played the under.

Those are things you've got to consider playing overs, I just don't feel betting unders is as easy a thing to cap when you take into account the way the game is played in leagues/competitions.

[bolek]

unders are not bad, just have to pick the right spot if you bet unders in the asia wc qualifiers you would be killing it...

Played under 2.5 singapore this morning
Thanx cashed